Popular evidences for evolution are the DNA comparisons between species and how they align with the expected common descent pattern. Species that are thought to be more closely related on the evolutionary tree have been found to have more similar DNA, and species that are thought to be more distant on the evolutionary tree have been found to have greater differences in their DNA. The DNA comparisons, evolutionists argue, confirm the expected pattern. Indeed, evolutionists often presented such evidence with great confidence. As Christian de Duve once triumphantly declared: “All [organisms] are descendants of a single ancestral form of life. This fact is now established thanks to the comparative sequencing of proteins and nucleic acids.” But while evolutionists were quick to celebrate these comparisons that confirmed their expectations, contradictory findings slowly but surely arose. Increasingly genome similarities in otherwise distant species, and genome differences in otherwise similar species were discovered. And while evolutionists sometimes tried to explain these uncooperative findings, the evolutionary histories they needed to construct became increasingly complex and circuitous. Today these uncooperative findings have become undeniable and in response evolutionists have all but dropped the common descent prediction, replacing it with a lineage-specific model where evolution is constantly creating new genome features, even between nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree. What evolutionists have not reckoned with is the implications of this move. If evolution can produce a lineage-specific pattern as well as a common descent pattern, then the comparisons lose their confirmation power. If evolution explains either A or B, then the observation of A, or of B, cannot support evolution very well. Nonetheless evolutionists continue to proclaim those comparisons that align with common descent as powerful and compelling proof texts for evolution. One such comparison is between the chromosomes of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. Read more
8 Replies to “Evolutionist: “This Picture Has Creationists Terrified””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
And this article has Darwinists terrified!
http://crev.info/2014/02/fitte.....er-arrive/
From the article:
At the end of the paper, they state:
And this article has Darwinists terrified!
http://crev.info/2014/02/fitte.....er-arrive/
From the article:
At the end of the paper, they state:
To be fair, however, the similarity has made many atheists.
Creationists were first to notice that primates are more similar to humans than trees. We can’t run away from the similarity, but let’s not pretend either that it was the evolutionists who saw the similarity, it was the creationists who saw it first!
Michael Denton related that when he was a medical student in the dissection room, the similarity between the primates and humans was overpowering, he became an atheist for a season because of that experience. Others, like a commenter PasserBy11 have said the same thing.
Running away from the similarity and trying to de-emphasize it will catch a young creationist off guard, and he will think to himself, “I’ve been lied to.”
I take the similarity as a message from God. When God wanted to humble Nebuchadnezzar, he made him behave like an animal for several years. Were it not for God’s grace, we’re only slightly above other primates, but instead he has lent us faculties that enable us to build spaceships and do other incredible things.
The physiological similarities are replete gross morphology, but that said, the genomic differences seem to be more extensive the more we study them and the brain differences, quite different in certain dimensions.
Dr. Hunter, unless you know something I don’t, the Chromosome 2 fusion argument has been decisively debunked to the best of my knowledge:
Moreover, the supposed 98% genetic similarity between Chimps and Humans is now also shown to be fallacious:
Moreover, as if that was not devastating enough to the 99% similarity myth, a large percentage of completely unique orphan genes (no one really knows the exact percentage difference yet), with no sequence homology whatsoever, are now being found in each new genome that is sequenced, including humans and chimps:
Even arch neo-Darwinists Jerry Coyne admits to a large percentage of ORFan genes that are not shared:
Moreover, the anatomy between chimps and humans is far greater than Darwinists have misled to public to believe. In fact, in the very same paper that started the whole 98% genetic similarity myth, it was noted that anatomical differences between chimps and humans are ‘significant’:
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps found to be that a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Moreover, due to the extreme controversy that was generated for even questioning such a supposedly well supported theory (i.e. that Humans and chimps are closely related), Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to debunk than Darwinists had at first supposed it would be:
Thus, as preposterous as the pig/chimp (PIMP) hypothesis was/is, Darwinists were/are unable to decisively refute it because the anatomical differences between humans and chimps is far greater than that between pigs and humans!
Let’s suppose you were an evolutionist. Which of these scenarios would be preferred evidence, and why?:
(1) The number of chromosome pairs between humans and chimps are equal.
(2) Humans have one less chromosome pair than chimps, but one of the human pairs is* a fused chromosome pair.
* Disregarding that it may actually not be a fused chromosome pair as BA77 point out above.
My answer is this. If I were an evolutionist, I think I would prefer that the case were #1. Why? Because if anything it creates more problems. Now a fusion event needs to be explained in a certain time period.
Claiming that a prediction was made for a fusion event would be a nice prediction, but I don’t think it would have been unique to common descent. If the morphological and other biochemical similarities are similar enough, one could predict a fusion event – if so desired – on the basis of comparative anatomy alone.
Another question is this….
If there is no fusion event. Will this refute common descent, or will evolutionist maintain their position but simply adapt to the evidence and say it was deleted.
In tune of the old coin flipping adage, the evolutionist says: If fused I win. If deleted you lose.
Edit:”Why? Because if anything
it[a fusion event] creates more problems. Now a fusion event needs to be explained in a certain time period.”A study on avian DNA showed that the predators were unrelated to each other and more related to birds like pigeons and doves.
the chromosomal fusion happaned in the human genome(48 fuse into 46) and not apes. so there is no evidence for coomondescent.